Merged So there was melted steel

[Clayton Moore]

Well was it a river of steel flowing? or did it just look like one?

http://www.harleygoldman.com/photo/water_tank_rust/

Hot Water and rust flowing could look like a river of steel flowing ?

This looks like a ditch full of molten steel.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1099889

You're right. Fireman certainly couldn't put them out for 3 months.

 

[000063]

if you seriously think that the fire fighters and mr.robertson could not tell the difference between melted plastic and molten steel then you must seriously get better meds.
...

You have heard me and others repeatedly asserting that it's basically impossible to identify molten steel, specifically, by eye, right?

0.5% of the steel was collected for analysis. What might have been found on the other 99.5% that we don't know about?
236 pieces out of how many tens of thousands?

Hardly a reliable amount to determine the buildings fate on.

Call me crazy, but I don't think any amount would satisfy you.

Of course, you are aware that the shedloads of steelworkers cleaning up the site probably would've said something if they had found molten steel, right? Why don't Truthers see if any of them said anything?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You have heard me and others repeatedly asserting that it's basically impossible to identify molten steel, specifically, by eye, right?

After three months I'll give them a pass.

Of course, you are aware that the shedloads of steelworkers cleaning up the site probably would've said something if they had found molten steel, right? Why don't Truthers see if any of them said anything?

I'm guessing the shedloads were contractors who were told to shut up if they valued their paycheck.

 

[lexicon008]

Well was it a river of steel flowing? or did it just look like one?

http://www.harleygoldman.com/photo/water_tank_rust/

Hot Water and rust flowing could look like a river of steel flowing ?

This looks like a ditch full of molten steel.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1099889

lol yeah i'm sure that he thought a river of rusted water was so important that he felt compelled to put it into a lecture on the collapses.

 

[Spanx]

lol yeah i'm sure that he thought a river of rusted water was so important that he felt compelled to put it into a lecture on the collapses.

Ok your go, what could look like a little river of steel ?

 

[LSSBB]

After three months I'll give them a pass.





I'm guessing the shedloads were contractors who were told to shut up if they valued their paycheck.

How big is your Conspiracy now, and not a shred of real documentary evidence of anyone's involvement? Claiming that folks were made to shut up is just a made up claim if you have no evidence.

 

[tsig]

After three months I'll give them a pass.





I'm guessing the shedloads were contractors who were told to shut up if they valued their paycheck.

Well if they were paying them to keep quiet then they should just buy off the truthers. How much have you been offered?

 

[triforcharity]

19.2.4 - Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4
oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used
to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce
exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally
leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.
Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having
been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing
fires and were referred to in these particular instances
as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of
exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire
growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire),
and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of
being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that
there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.
In any fire where the rate of fire growth is considered exceedingly
rapid, other reasons for this should be considered in addition to the use
of an accelerant, exotic or otherwise. These reasons include ventilation,
fire suppression tactics, and the type and configuration of the fuels.

you might remember this one...you posted it here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183072

Regardless, NIST was told that many people (fire fighters, clean up crew, Les Robertson himself (you know him don't ya beach?)) indicated they saw molten steel and they seemed to be uninterested in checking this out even though they knew that the fires should not have caused it.

You do realize that Jet fuel, is considered an exotic accelerant, right? And you remember what was dumped into the WTC that helped START the fire? I'm fully aware of my thorough debunking of Erik Lawyer. His nonsense is just that: nonsense.

But, you also realize that NFPA is not a legally binding directive, that it is just a guideline? There are other guidelines that investigators follow.


Now, how can it be shown that it was CONCLUSIVELY melted steel?

 

[beachnut]

if you seriously think that the fire fighters and mr.robertson could not tell the difference between melted plastic and molten steel then you must seriously get better meds.

0.5% of the steel was collected for analysis. What might have been found on the other 99.5% that we don't know about?
236 pieces out of how many tens of thousands?

Hardly a reliable amount to determine the buildings fate on.

Robertson said no melted steel. You ignore people who change their mind. Robertson can learn, 911 truth can't get off the failed idiotic claim of melted steel.

There is no steel melted, none. No evidence.

The steel was looked out, and the pieces of interest were saved. This means they found no melted steel. The only pieces that showed major corrosion, two pieces. They corroded, at 700-800 and 1000 C. Does steel melt at those temps? No

You got talk to feed your fantasy of melted steel. 12 years of failure, 911 truth.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm guessing the shedloads were contractors who were told to shut up if they valued their paycheck.

And....what's stopping them now? Um....

 

[Redwood]

Of course, you are aware that the shedloads of steelworkers cleaning up the site probably would've said something if they had found molten steel, right? Why don't Truthers see if any of them said anything?

Silly bedunker, they undoubtedly did, but found that wherever they turned to try to report it, the Vast Conspiracy controls everything:

1. NYPD
2. FDNY
3. FBI
4. ATF
5. The entire world's media.
6. Insurance company investigators.

Every sampled of cooled, previously molten iron/steel that they brought with them was confiscated, likewise for all their photos and videos, and they were told to shut up or they'd lose their jobs and pensions, they'd never work anywhere ever again, and they and their families would be reduced to begging in the streets, or starve.

Even as we discuss this, they are under constant surveillance, lest they anonymously distribute the evidence which will send the Bush Crime Family and its successor, the Obama Crime Family, to the gallows. That the Obama Crime Family would risk its neck for Bush just shows how the vastness of the conspiracy.

 

[Redwood]

0.5% of the steel was collected for analysis. What might have been found on the other 99.5% that we don't know about?
236 pieces out of how many tens of thousands?

Hardly a reliable amount to determine the buildings fate on.

Silly twoofie, the debris was carefully sorted and inspected before disposal. That's how thousands of personal effects were recovered, and how two anomalous, corroded samples of steel were recovered and tested.

Nobody reported any signs of blast damage or melted structural steel to any investigative body. To me, this demonstrates the diligence and conscientiousness of the clean-up crew. But I suppose it proves to you the vastness of the Vast Conspiracy.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Have things been faked/manipulated..sure.
Is all the evidence fake..not likely.
Could the molten materials have been misidentified..of course..but that still does not excuse the lack of investigation into those claims. Especially when they are coming from people who would likely know that what they saw was not usual in a fire.

As far as evidence is concerned you have at best a collection of witness statements that describe an image of what they saw in a burning debris pile weeks after the collapses, but no corroborating evidence to either prove the presence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt or let alone prove it existed pre-collapse, and moreover that anything cut through the structure during the sequence of events that directly contributed to their colklapse initiation. Not one person reported the melting of steel during the evacuation of the towers either. I'd say that what you have is an unsupported assumption that was further born from the belief that a building cannot collapse from sufficient physical damage and heat weakening.

And on top of that people want to fake visual evidence...

I don't think you need to be an architect or engineer to go through a proper thinking regimen to understand why the buildings collapsed and why the explanations don't require an elaborate explanation.

You need to remember, thse claims of molten steel did not come from truthers..they came from firemen, clean up crews, engineers and others at the site. 911 truth did not exist when these claims were made.

It does not matter who said what... the evidence doesn't support nor corroborate that testimony and what you think you do have is at best shoddy.. You'll have to deal with the conclusions which follow as such whether you agree with the fire-induced collapse scenario or not.

 

[Redwood]

Again heat tends to rise. It is going to be far hotter over a heat source then beside it unless there is something directing the heat in the lateral direction.

Wrong, phlogiston-breath. Heat doesn't "rise"; hot air rises as it is less than cool air. Water/ice is unusual in that ice is less dense than water, hence it floats even though it's colder. BTW, this won't work if you're in a state of freefall.

Heat is basically the kinetic energy of molecules. It can be transmitted by convection (molecules colliding with other molecules) or by radiation, or lost by evaporation. Radiation is mostly why you are warmed by a fire even if you aren't standing over it.

So it is not impossible for them to be standing within visual distance of a river of flowing steel and not get burned.
Again, you can find pictures and videos all over the place of workers in foundrys standing within feet of molten metals and not having much of a problem.

I suggest you test this empirically by visiting a foundry and see how long you can stand being close to molten metals of various temperatures. Vary your distance and report back to us.

Yawn...much of theoretical physics is based on talk and math and no real evidence.

Wrong again, phlogiston-breath. Theoretical physics is based on physical evidence, and when physical evidence repeatedly contradicts theory, theory is either modified or discarded.

The primary language of modern physical science is mathematics. That's how physical science has leapt forward, beginning with luminaries such as Newton and Huygens.

Am I the only one whose irony meter exploded upon seeing a person who is both ignorant and disparaging of science trying to make a scientific argument?

 

[lexicon008]

Wrong, phlogiston-breath. Heat doesn't "rise"; hot air rises as it is less than cool air. Water/ice is unusual in that ice is less dense than water, hence it floats even though it's colder. BTW, this won't work if you're in a state of freefall.

Heat is basically the kinetic energy of molecules. It can be transmitted by convection (molecules colliding with other molecules) or by radiation, or lost by evaporation. Radiation is mostly why you are warmed by a fire even if you aren't standing over it.



I suggest you test this empirically by visiting a foundry and see how long you can stand being close to molten metals of various temperatures. Vary your distance and report back to us.



Wrong again, phlogiston-breath. Theoretical physics is based on physical evidence, and when physical evidence repeatedly contradicts theory, theory is either modified or discarded.

The primary language of modern physical science is mathematics. That's how physical science has leapt forward, beginning with luminaries such as Newton and Huygens.

Am I the only one whose irony meter exploded upon seeing a person who is both ignorant and disparaging of science trying to make a scientific argument?

An awful lot of words to make no real point.

we can go into a long drawn out argument over thermodynamics if you want but the fact remains..you can easily see a flowing river of steel or molten metal from a distance without ill effects. Unless you are implying that the 2 videos i posted showing guys in short sleeves working near the molten steel are faked.
Theoretical physics is as i said..talk..math and no real evidence. When they have evidence it is no longer a theory it moves into the realm of fact.
It is alot of math..until they can prove that their math actually means something in the real world and not just on paper..it is just talk and is not evidence.

 

[Dog Town]

An awful lot of words to make no real point.

we can go into a long drawn out argument over thermodynamics if you want but the fact remains..you can easily see a flowing river of steel or molten metal

 

[WTC Dust]

A large pool of molten metal is said by many to exist in the basement of the WTC. Not only are there zero photographs of anything that looks like a large pool of molten metal in the basement of the WTC, instead there are pictures such as the one attached to this message.

Human beings were walking all over the pile in the early days after the attacks. If a few stories below them was a roiling, boiling pot of steel, they'd have died rather quickly in this position. Obviously they are not dead.

 

[Dog Town]

Human beings were walking all over the pile in the early days after the attacks. If a few stories below them was a roiling, boiling pot of steel, they'd have died rather quickly in this position. Obviously they are not dead.

The voice of reason! Odd that!

 

[WTC Dust]

I am an engineer. If I saw a river of what looked like steel, how would I know that it was indeed steel?

One thing that needs to be addressed is gravity.

Things flow from somewhere to somewhere else.
If there was anything flowing days later, this needs to
be addressed. It didn't take days for the WTC to fall.
It took moments. After the WTC fell, there was almost
nowhere for anything to flow from, and not much distance
below where it was possible to flow to.

I'm not saying that steel didn't flow. I am saying that it
wasn't molten steel, but I'm not saying it did not flow.
Something was happening there. Too many fire fighters
said something about "molten metal flowing" to ignore this.

But it wasn't flowing due to the initial attacks. It couldn't
have been. If it was flowing at all, it was because of
some kind of continuing reaction.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that there were a number of reports of molten steel at the WTC that is consistent with the number of reports of molten steel in many other non_911 fires?

Such reports are either true, in which case molten steel is common in large fires and thus inconsequential wrt to 9/11,(as far as being anomaly)
OR
Such reports are wrong/untrue in which case the existence of such in other fires indicates the unreliable, yet commonplace, nature of said reports?

There's another option.

The reporting could be true but not fully correct.
The fire fighters accurately reported some flowing stuff days later.
But the flowing stuff they called "molten metal" wasn't really
molten metal. It was foamed metal, and the reaction that
produced the foamed metal was continuing after the fact.

You can't just ignore the reporting of the fire fighters who said
there was molten metal in the basement of the WTC, but on the
other hand, you don't have to insist that because they thought
it was molten metal that it absolutely must have been molten metal.

To understand this fully, you have to look at the other evidence,
the physical evidence, documentary evidence (videos and photographs),
and combine it with the fire fighter testimony to make a single
theory that accommodates both.

I have. They thought it was molten metal. It wasn't. It was
oddly flowing metal, but it wasn't flowing due to gravity days
later, and it wasn't flowing due to heat, because the people could
walk above it without dying.